MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Leakage Targets and Socio‐Economic Efficiency

2001· article· en· W2028889521 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWater and Environment Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeakage (economics)SafeguardingWater qualityEnvironmental economicsBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Environmental scienceNatural resource economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract During the last few years, the introduction of mandatory leakage targets for UK water companies has had the positive effect of reducing levels of leakage, while requiring the companies to operate at an economic level of leakage. Unfortunately, the determination of company‐specific economic levels of leakage have been a source of disagreement between the water companies and the Government, with the Government view that water companies are not using the true long‐term marginal costs of water abstraction, and therefore are not safeguarding the environment. This paper (a) reviews the model which was used to define the economic level of leakage, (b) argues the case for resource management based on the impact of water abstractions on the socio‐environmental quality of a resource rather than the myopic focus on leakage reductions, (c) presents the concepts of effectiveness and efficiency in relation to socio‐environmental quality, and (d) proposes a new methodology which allows the determination of water abstraction rates while maintaining a desired level of socio‐environmental quality.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.149
Teacher spread0.145 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it